Outside of Space and Time
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-03-2015, 09:58 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(29-03-2015 09:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-03-2015 09:03 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I don't want links, I want answers to my questions.

Things are more involved and ideas more complex than you seem capable of even conceiving.
You need to read some grown-up books and learn some grown-up ideas.

I will read some grown-books when you can type more than two sentences per post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2015, 10:15 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(29-03-2015 11:50 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Real simple example. Here's your line:

----/----/----/----/----/----/----/----/----/----/

For the sake of argument, it goes on infinitely in both directions, and those backslashes are road markers placed every mile along that, forever. What we're seeing is but a small part of the full road.

Now, we need to place the man with the suitcase somewhere on that line; he obviously has to exist at some physical point there, or else the entire argument falls apart.

----/----/----/----/----/----/----/----/---1-/----/

There he is, at the 1. Hi, man with suitcases!

Now we also need to place me on the road somewhere; I have to exist on the road too, if I'm going to be walking anywhere.

----/----/--A--/----/----/----/----/----/---1-/----/

Okay, so there's me, existing at a point on the infinite road. And the road is infinite, remember; it goes on forever in either direction. But the relevant space we need to take into account is the space between me and the man, between the A and the 1, because that's the distance I'd need to walk if I wanted to get to where I'm going. Can we measure that distance finitely?

Oh, actually we can. It's 6.25 miles, if we use the road markers as guides. So I'm on an infinite road, but I only have to travel a finite distance. The road is still infinite, but it's infinite behind both me and the man I'm trying to reach. Between the two of us is a definitely finite distance, unless the man starts walking in the opposite direction at a rate of speed equal to or faster than my own.

Easy, right?


Damn the man/suitcase analogy...my example from the prior post


<----------------------------1--------------------------->

Ok, the left is the past, right is the future...infinity in both directions...the dashes represent earlier/later than events...#1 represents event X.

Now, event X is reached, having successfully traversed an infinite amount of events which lead to it...now, if we wanted to travel EQUAL distance into the future and stop at the specified point which represents this equal distance, what point would we stop at???

Either we will continue to travel forever and ever because no point can be reached, or we can stop at a finite point, but this finite point couldn't possibly represent an INFINITE equal distance that was previously traversed.

So either way, you have problems.

However....

<--S--------------------------1---------------------------->

If we had a starting point (S), and event X (1) is reached...and we traveled equal distance in the future and stop at a point where we reached this distance...what do we have?

<--S--------------------------1----------------------------F>

We have an equal finished point (F).

Conclusion: The only way any event X can successfully come to past on any timeline would be for there to have been a past boundary...a beginning point...but if the past is eternal, we would NEVER arrive at any event X, because for any event X to come to past, an infinite number of event X's would have preceded it, making it impossible to arrive at any points on the timeline.

So an absolute beginning of time is necessary...and only a timeless entity can be the source of time itself...God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2015, 10:17 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(29-03-2015 09:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(29-03-2015 09:15 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  How is it a red herring? You were talking about infinity and how it can't exist or can't be comprehended.

He said that to distract me from the real problem...his ignorance.

Quite the opposite, he's pointing out YOUR ignorance of high school math.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2015, 11:14 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(29-03-2015 10:15 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(29-03-2015 11:50 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Real simple example. Here's your line:

----/----/----/----/----/----/----/----/----/----/

For the sake of argument, it goes on infinitely in both directions, and those backslashes are road markers placed every mile along that, forever. What we're seeing is but a small part of the full road.

Now, we need to place the man with the suitcase somewhere on that line; he obviously has to exist at some physical point there, or else the entire argument falls apart.

----/----/----/----/----/----/----/----/---1-/----/

There he is, at the 1. Hi, man with suitcases!

Now we also need to place me on the road somewhere; I have to exist on the road too, if I'm going to be walking anywhere.

----/----/--A--/----/----/----/----/----/---1-/----/

Okay, so there's me, existing at a point on the infinite road. And the road is infinite, remember; it goes on forever in either direction. But the relevant space we need to take into account is the space between me and the man, between the A and the 1, because that's the distance I'd need to walk if I wanted to get to where I'm going. Can we measure that distance finitely?

Oh, actually we can. It's 6.25 miles, if we use the road markers as guides. So I'm on an infinite road, but I only have to travel a finite distance. The road is still infinite, but it's infinite behind both me and the man I'm trying to reach. Between the two of us is a definitely finite distance, unless the man starts walking in the opposite direction at a rate of speed equal to or faster than my own.

Easy, right?


Damn the man/suitcase analogy...my example from the prior post


<----------------------------1--------------------------->

Ok, the left is the past, right is the future...infinity in both directions...the dashes represent earlier/later than events...#1 represents event X.

Now, event X is reached, having successfully traversed an infinite amount of events which lead to it...now, if we wanted to travel EQUAL distance into the future and stop at the specified point which represents this equal distance, what point would we stop at???

Either we will continue to travel forever and ever because no point can be reached, or we can stop at a finite point, but this finite point couldn't possibly represent an INFINITE equal distance that was previously traversed.

So either way, you have problems.

However....

<--S--------------------------1---------------------------->

If we had a starting point (S), and event X (1) is reached...and we traveled equal distance in the future and stop at a point where we reached this distance...what do we have?

<--S--------------------------1----------------------------F>

We have an equal finished point (F).

Conclusion: The only way any event X can successfully come to past on any timeline would be for there to have been a past boundary...a beginning point...but if the past is eternal, we would NEVER arrive at any event X, because for any event X to come to past, an infinite number of event X's would have preceded it, making it impossible to arrive at any points on the timeline.
Do you mean "come to pass" instead of "past"? Usually I wouldn't ask but for this topic here it is terminally confusing
Quote:So an absolute beginning of time is necessary...and only a timeless entity can be the source of time itself...God.

Erm, I think your argument, if sound, applies to the impossibility of an eternal God as well. The words "source of time" are meaningless if you don't define exactly what you mean by that, and that only your God (whatever that is supposed to be) can act assuch a source is at best an unfounded assertion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Alex K's post
30-03-2015, 12:13 AM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
It's like, "eternal past"? NO! IMPOSSIBLE! I can't conceive it! Nothing can exist eternally in time!

"Eternal God"? Well duh, yeah, he exists eternally OUTSIDE of time... that makes perfect sense.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Pickup_shonuff's post
30-03-2015, 02:20 AM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(30-03-2015 12:13 AM)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:  It's like, "eternal past"? NO! IMPOSSIBLE! I can't conceive it! Nothing can exist eternally in time!

"Eternal God"? Well duh, yeah, he exists eternally OUTSIDE of time... that makes perfect sense.

Yup... Btw, you're the history of philosophy buff, who started this nonsense argument? It's probably old, but I would hope that the old philosophers had higher standards...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 04:28 AM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(29-03-2015 09:58 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(29-03-2015 09:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  Things are more involved and ideas more complex than you seem capable of even conceiving.
You need to read some grown-up books and learn some grown-up ideas.

I will read some grown-books when you can type more than two sentences per post.

Your willful ignorance has been noted. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 04:30 AM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
I missed that one! Threatening us to not ever read any books if we don't comply, that's hilarious!

"Yeah, well, I can die stupid without raising an eyebrow. But can you bear to watch?"

Quantum Physics: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alex K's post
30-03-2015, 04:57 AM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(30-03-2015 02:20 AM)Alex K Wrote:  Yup... Btw, you're the history of philosophy buff, who started this nonsense argument? It's probably old, but I would hope that the old philosophers had higher standards...
Well, from what I've gathered thus far, I'm sure it goes back to at least the presocratics though their writings fortunately only exist in fragments. A popular idea among some of them, based on a reasonable though ultimately naive observation is that inanimate matter requires an external force to move, whereas bodies with minds move of their own will or intention, hence in Plato an argument from motion that basically amounts to the unmoved mover(s) of Aristotle posits the soul as the self-sufficient mover of bodies, an idea he probably borrowed from the "nous" (intellect) of Parminides and Anaxagoras, the latter who believed it the ultimate cause of order in the cosmos. I'm only just getting into Aristotle now but he popularised the first cause argument, I believe deriving it from his ideas of actuality, potentially, and causation. But keep in mind that while these philosophers were poly- or heno-theists, the concept of first cause as it came to be employed in apologetics didn't really (as far as I know) take the form that it now often has until the Christian and Muslim scholastics, and I think it is compatible with atheistic philosophies insofar as the first cause is not deified by the mythological concepts typically attributed to it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Pickup_shonuff's post
30-03-2015, 04:58 AM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(29-03-2015 10:15 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  <----------------------------1--------------------------->

Ok, the left is the past, right is the future...infinity in both directions...the dashes represent earlier/later than events...#1 represents event X.

Now, event X is reached, having successfully traversed an infinite amount of events which lead to it

What, exactly, has "successfully traversed an infinite amount of events"?

Quote:...now, if we wanted to travel EQUAL distance into the future and stop at the specified point which represents this equal distance, what point would we stop at???

How is that even a useful or meaningful question?

Quote:Either we will continue to travel forever and ever because no point can be reached, or we can stop at a finite point, but this finite point couldn't possibly represent an INFINITE equal distance that was previously traversed.

Points are neither finite nor infinite - the term does not apply to them.

Quote:So either way, you have problems.

However....

<--S--------------------------1---------------------------->

If we had a starting point (S), and event X (1) is reached...and we traveled equal distance in the future and stop at a point where we reached this distance...what do we have?

<--S--------------------------1----------------------------F>

We have an equal finished point (F).

Conclusion: The only way any event X can successfully come to past on any timeline would be for there to have been a past boundary...a beginning point...but if the past is eternal, we would NEVER arrive at any event X, because for any event X to come to past, an infinite number of event X's would have preceded it, making it impossible to arrive at any points on the timeline.

That conclusion simply does not follow from the argument. And the expression is 'come to pass'. Drinking Beverage
It is also strikingly at odds with your sitting god example - he who can sit forever without time occurring but then decide to stand.

Quote:So an absolute beginning of time is necessary...and only a timeless entity can be the source of time itself...God.

You still have not given any cogent explanation of 'outside of time'.

Also, why do you insist that our time be unique? More precisely, why our time line has to be the only one? Ours began at the big bang, there may have been/may be/may come other time lines.

And your conclusion that only your god is the answer is hilariously simplistic and egotistical.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: